Property loses its ancestral character upon partition. To claim coparcenary rights, the plaintiff must prove devolution through three male lineal descendants; otherwise, the owner is the exclusive owner and competent to dispose of the property.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the District Courts, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for joint possession and declaration, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed instant Civil Suit dated 04.02.1993 seeking declaration as owner in joint possession of suit land/agricultural land measuring 11K 12M as described in the plaint on the ground that the said suit land was Ancestral Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property; and for setÝng aside the Sale Deeds dated 30.08.1985, 07.06.1988, and 3 other Sale Deeds each dated 13.05.1994.

3. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that he is the son of defendant No.1, who had died during the pendency of the suit. As per the plaintiff, suit property was owned by Ram Rattan, grandfather of the plaintiff. The suit property was Joint Hindu Family property of Ram Rattan, his sons and grandsons. Defendant No.1 Kishori Lal and his brother Dharam Parkash being sons of Ram Rattan, had affected an oral partition of Joint Hindu Family Properties through an Award dated 19.07.1943 given by Arbitrator. The said Award was registered on 29.10.1943. It was the contention of the plaintiff that there was huge agricultural land belonging to Joint Hindu Family of Ram Rattan, which was not made subject matter of the Award. Out of total agricultural land of Joint Hindu Family Kishori Lal and his son i.e. the plaintiff became owner of 27K 12M. After the death of Kishori Lal, half share was inherited by all his legal heirs including the plaintiff. It was alleged that defendants No. 2 to 4 had influence over defendant No.1 and they intended to deprive the plaintiff of his valuable rights over the suit property. Sale Deeds were challenged on the ground that suit land was ancestral, and the said Sale Deeds have been executed by Kishori Lal without legal necessity. It was pleaded that plaintiff being coparcener had a right by virtue of birth in the Ancestral Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property. It is further stated that plaintiff came to know about the alleged Sale Deeds only in the year 1993. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 04.02.1993.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2024. Hence, the present second appeals by the plaintiff.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that learned District Courts were in error in non-suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that through the Arbitration Award in 1943 partition was affected only with respect to some urban properties for the purposes of residential needs; whereas remaining Agricultural lands were not partitioned and always remained Joint Hindu Family Property/Ancestral property. Thus, it has been wrongly concluded by the Courts below that after the partition, the property had lost the character of Joint Hindu Family cop